Study Design

We devised a qualitative study to address these questions. We utilized an approach derived from grounded theory, in which meaning is derived from data through iterative interpretation and comparison, as the framework to guide our investigation.¹⁹ We developed a semistructured interview guide with introductory discrete questions regarding program size, faculty composition, etc., and then applied the following framework that was developed by the study investigators (SC, JJ, WEC, LY, DR, EF): 1) chairs’ descriptions of their departments’ education faculty, educational goals, and adequacy of resources; 2) views of education research in comparison to clinical research and expectations of scholarly productivity among faculty; 3) departmental sources of support for education and scholarship; 4) access to expertise in education scholarship; and 5) barriers to and proposed solutions for improving education scholarship. In keeping with the sociologic qualitative tradition, these were guided conversations intended to provide direction and elicit supporting information from the participants’ points of view. We performed real‐time member checking with subjects during their interviews to ensure the clarity of their responses. The instrument was developed by consensus of the authors and read aloud for response process, clarity, and comprehension to comparable volunteers who were not study subjects. Minor grammatical errors and question length were altered for ease of administration and comprehension (see Data Supplement S1 [available as supporting information in the online version of this paper, which is available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aet2.10070/full] for interview guide). The study was approved by each investigator's institutional review board.